Questions for you, Peter and suggestion
to the list 1

Some time around the beginning of 2000, you
made public your first story as solo author about anthroposophy
and anthroposophical activities. It was published by DD on the
WC-list and according to the WC-list of articles it is still
found in its pre-publication version at the site.

The article constitutes the possibly worst
smear published in English on the internet ever of anthroposophy
and anthroposophical activities, with its refined lighthearted
and manipulative argumentation, using a mixture of unsubstantiated
assertions, untruths, half truths, and twisting of history to
paint a picture of anthroposophy and different movements based
on anthroposophy as a proto- and pronazi, anti-Semitic and racist
movement, in theory and practice. In what you have written after
that on anthroposophy and activities based on anthroposophy,
you have continued to write in a similar way.

The article was commissioned by the Norwegian
secular humanist journal Humanist and published in the 2000/2
issue of the journal and later in the 2001/2 issue of the journal
of the Swedish Association Science and Public Education. It is
also published by the formed Swedish Secular Humanist Association,
and at the site of ISE, with which you are associated, and a
number of other places on the internet.

The article starts by a made up description
by you of the lecture series "Mission of Folk Souls",
held by Rudolf Steiner in Oslo in 1910. The original version
of your story about it, that is the one still published at the
mentioned sites, contains a number of statements about the first
lecture and the lecture series in its totality, like:

"The "national souls" of Northern
and Central Europe were, Steiner explained, components of the
"germanic-nordic sub-race," the world's most spiritually
advanced ethnic group, which was in turn the vanguard of the
highest of five historical "root races." This superior
fifth root race, Steiner told his Oslo audience, was naturally
the "Aryan race." "

You also for some reason assert that the lecture
series, that was held in Oslo, was held as a "speaking tour
of Norway".

At different times, it has been pointed out
to you, that your description of the first lecture and the lecture
series, that you have made into the foundation store of your
further writings on anthroposophy, and continued to defend in
principle up to today, four years after its original publication
by PLANS, does not correspond to reality in the sense of what
Rudolf Steiner actually says in the first lecture and in the
lecture series in its totality. As reading of the lecture, found
at http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/Steiner/Folkspirits/1-GeneralIntroduction.htm
tells, it does not say one word about what I quote above from
your introduction.

Instead it constitutes a description of among
other things the basic nature of man's supersensible being and
something of the basic nature of Angels, Archangels and higher
beings described in the Jewish-Christian tradition.

When it has been pointed out that your story
about the first lecture and the lecture series lacks support
in the historically documented lecture and lecture series, you
at least up to last year, more than three years after your first
publication of it, have made fun of these comments by blowing
smoke screens about it in different ways, last year with the
added help of DD; see http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments/PS/Staudenmaier.html
for a number of your different stories about it.

When we corresponded in Nov 2001 about where
your article has been published, you told that you at one time
had sent a "revised" version of your article to the
(I assume webmaster of) the site of ISE, and to PLANS to make
them replace the original version with what you called your "revised"
version. See http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/pseudovetenskap/Staudenmaier-mail.htm

One may assume that you in the "revised"
version had replaced what you had found out was untrue in your
original version with what you, when revising your article, thought
was true.

Am I correct in assuming that the "revised"
version, that you sent to them is the version that you sent to
John Holland for publication at his site "OpenWaldorf"
last summer?

In that version, you have taken out the reference
to the first lecture of the lecture series, that you up to at
least last year, two years later, with the support of DD, continued
to defend in a circumscribing way on the WC-list as describing
reality and making fun of my way of telling that your description
of the lecture constitutes a historical forgery, in an especially
obvious way in relation to the first lecture of the lecture series.

But you also told, in late 2001, that when
you saw that they (PLANS and ISE) had not replaced the original
version with the "revised" version, in which it must
be assumed that you had replaced what you had found out was untrue
with what you then thought was true, you did not bother the webmaster
of the sites publishing what you considered untrue about it (again),
telling "I don't take these things nearly as seriously as
you do", referring to the publication of what you even yourself
consider to be untrue on the internet.

At one time in the discussion of the truthfulness
of what is found at the site of PLANS, DD added the statement
in passing to the site: "PLANS does not necessarily agree
with or vouch for the veracity of everything posted in this section"
up to this day, as also Gary Bonhiver, as far as I'm aware of
have left the original version of the papers by you unchanged
at the site.

After almost two more years, last summer,
you socially very smoothly then made John Holland, who also still
possibly is a member of this list, publish what you called a
revised version of your original article at his site. In the
"revised" version, you start the article with what
I quote at the bottom of http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/pseudovetenskap/Staudenmaier-New.htm

In the new introduction to the article, made
available on the net last summer by you through John Holland,
you have taken out the reference to the first lecture of the
series, that you for then three and a half year had defended
vigorously in different ways when its untruthfulness was pointed
out by different people.

After you, possibly on a trip to Germany during
the summer of 2001, (finally) had gotten a number of versions
of the lecture series in their more or less original form, knowing
that the lecture series in its totality was held in Oslo, and
still without giving any reason or source for it, you continue
to write, in a similar way as in the original article:

"In June, 1910, Rudolf Steiner, the founder
of anthroposophy, began a speaking tour of Norway with a lecture
to a large and attentive audience in Oslo."

continuing to for some mysterious reason indicate
that Rudolf Steiner went on a speaking tour around Norway, and
that the lecture series in Oslo was just part of this by you
indicated lecture tour around Norway, without at any time giving
any source for this assertion, that I have found no support for
when asking different people if any source indicates that Steiner
actually went on such a lecture tour around Norway.

You have also kept basically the whole second
part of the introduction, and assert - few months ago; last summer
- after you have gotten the whole lecture series and indicated
that you actually have read it by telling that you have compared
different versions of it with each other:

"The "national souls" of Northern
and Central Europe belonged, Steiner explained, to the "germanic-nordic"
peoples, the world's most spiritually advanced ethnic group,
which was in turn the vanguard of the highest of five historical
"root races." This superior fifth root race, Steiner
told his Oslo audience, was naturally the "Aryan" race"
"

This in spite of - as you would know if you
actually had read the series as you indicate that you have -
that Steiner neither mentions "root races", tells about
"five historical "root races" " or tells
in the lecture series that "the " "Aryan"
race" constitutes the "superior fifth root race"
of the "five historical "root races" ".

Some time ago, you told on the WC-list, that
you slowly were writing a book on - I think - Steiner's racial
doctrines, and after that, you have entered this list, telling
what you think of it and asking what different people here on
this list - today - think of these "racial doctrines"
as you superficially understand and describe them, to my understanding
milking the participants for material that you can use in the
book you have told that you are writing.

Can you understand, Peter, that you COMPLETELY
lack credibility as truthteller in ANY consistent way about anthroposophy
and that your publishing record the four last years, after your
first solo act on anthroposophy, tells that you repeatedly in
a seemingly completely unpredictable make up unfounded and untruthful
twissted, malicious and smearing stories about anthroposophy,
in a way that indicates that you will continue to do this also
in the book you have told that you are writing on.

Your writings so far all the four last years
since you started your career as solo writer on anthroposophy
outside this list, where you appear very civilized and with an
air of scholar, indicate that you - again - will continue to
give seemingly credible quotes from Steiner, adding comments
like the one on the "voluminous" writings and lectures
by Steiner on "race" in John's forum, that I commented
on some days ago, neglecting what I have pointed out at for example
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments/comments1.htm
, mixing what you write with twisted and superficial arguments
about different by you superficially understood issues, for some
mysterious reason here and there adding some clear untruths and
unsubstantiated statements, twisting info from different sources
and using different parts of what you have milked out the participants
on this list for your presentation as material complementary
the quotes you have selected for the purpose out of the published
works of Steiner and the rest, while also adding some comments
to try to make what you write stand out as a "balanced"
and therefore "credible piece of work?

And of course not writing such sentences as
I do, but very eloquent ones
...

For the list:

I would suggest that noone comments on anything
that Peter Staudenmaier brings up for discussion in terms of
"quotes" that he "encourages" people here
to read and comment on, until AFTER Peter has told about what
he - today - considers to have been true respectively untrue
in his original version of the article "Anthroposophy and
Ecofascism", found at the site of PLANS and a number of
places on the internet.

Starting with the introduction to the article
in question and continuing with the rest of the article:

What do you today, Peter - after having gotten
a number of versions in German of the lecture series "Mission
of Folk Souls" - consider to be true, respectively untrue
in your original introduction to the article, and can you substantiate
what you think is true and giving the source for - you assertion
that Steiner went on a lecture tour around Norway, and - what
lectures and part of the lectures you base your view on in the
lecture series in its original form with regard to your "description"
of it, in the original version, and in the revised version of
your article "Anthroposophy and Ecofascism"?

I would suggest that noone comments on
anything that Peter Staudenmaier brings up for discussion in
terms of "quotes" that he "encourages" people
here to read and comment on, until AFTER Peter has told about
what he - today - considers to have been true respectively untrue
in his original version of the article "Anthroposophy and
Ecofascism", found at the site of PLANS and a number of
places on the internet.

Bradford called it "Ringers".

Thanks for so many things Sune, for years
I have wanted to thank-you and I do so now with all my heart.

Why Tarjei, Christine, Daniel, Sune and many
of us are looking at the thinking parameters that Steiner gets
lumped with, such as superheated sound bytes like ANTISEMITISM,
is because it appears that the line of defense is being built
for divisions along deep seated racial lines that are not consciously
ackowledged conspiracy driven activities by those engaged. The
colors of collapsed and feeble thinking have taken out their
weapons again.

In other words, in the 5th Post Atlantean
Epoch we learn that things are not always what they seem. We
learn about self deception, spin, dysfunction and corruption
in high places as well as in ourselves. But one man's corruption
is another man's sincerity. In other words, by not being conscious
of the shadowy subtext of the human being, various STREAMS OF
THINKING attract themselves to you or are repelled by you. Attracting
the Highest is not what P.S. has any conscious dignity in doing.
His attraction is to the fallen dregs that society is outgrowing,
but for him, it means a book deal. The audacity and egotism is
Typical of every monster that ever grew out of a lie.

To conclude; Ringers of ideologies and Ideologies
themselves are just cancerous pockets and clubs of beliefs, soul
realms, layers of uncharted being, where the variety of emotional
and mental maturity varies. Seeing with cognitive abilities the
deceptions which P.S. will not admit to has been proved by anyone
with sanity. Yet still he hungers for what he cannot have.

The world has moved to a place where innocent
questions, or innocent children or innocent ideologies are no
longer innocent but collect votes, are huge voting blocks, or
focus sharp knives of heated prejudice, exactly where there was
none before. This brings swirling public opinion attracted to
over heated sound bytes like ANTISEMITISM into vivid Michael
and Ahrimanic lines of division.

Hate groups can martial a whole set of "Ringers"
and sound bytes and spin and these have become a science under
Karl Rove. Karl or P.S. are cut from the same cloth. Karl is
a vicioius scorpian working out of brotherhoods that I recently
listed, connected even with Skull and Bones, Frank. Those in
the riots or demonstrations against the IMF or WTO have witnessed
infiltration in order to bring violence where there was none.
These were Politically paid strike breaking, Ringers. Sune is
right, P.S. is attempting bring juicy quotes to support his swarmy
intentions.

"Ringers" in ideologies are playing
in a layer of intellectual soul deceptions, this I'm sure I need
not repeat. Indeed John the Baptist only went as far down as
the Consciousness Soul Dottie but men have to rise through the
debris of a shattered culture to reach the vision of the true
Consciousness Soul. To be conscious of what feeds your motives,
drives ambitions and fuels your ideologies means that you break
with your own self absorbed lies and viciously driven instincts
and view humanity from a different perspective. Don't try this
at home kids. Nor can anyone Police it without reverting to what
happened to John Ashcroft. GALL. Mars.. and pancreas, and the
signature of failed Mars in his will- This is all the forced
killing of Freedom in "The Patriot Act".

This is all a 5th Post Atlantean mandatory
Initiation experience. Motives are real. As real as guns. They
are Weapons of Mass Deception. It is sad to say, P.S. has hardened
his will into a Weapon of Mass Deception for his own selfish
gain. But this confrontation is at our door. Neither Steiner,
Sune or anyone here is backing away from coming after him. He
declared War on Steiner and he declared War on those who share
humanity with him. Like Christine, I do not expect him to turn,
review or soften the icy coldness he has tasted of Ahriman.

But, I know one Italian who would like to
meet him in the street and exchange...views. But Steiner is shining
stronger than I have seen him shine in some time because of the
very culprit and the living proof that Steiner asked us to test,
meeting us with his inborn soul sickness and his hardened maladaption
to Truth or the Living Soul. When asked to find or if Steiner
can be proved, well for those who develop Eyes to See with, these
Symptomologies are Legion before our very eyes. If anyone had
doubts, just stick around.

I would suggest that noone comments on
anything that Peter Staudenmaier brings up for discussion in
terms of "quotes" that he "encourages" people
here to read and comment on, until AFTER Peter has told about
what he - today - considers to have been true respectively untrue
in his original version of the article "Anthroposophy and
Ecofascism", found at the site of PLANS and a number of
places on the internet.

I'll go for that. Peter, I'm writing a whole
essay in response to those RS quotes of yours, but my schedule
is busy, so I would like to take a break while we're waiting
for Godot.

So if you're curious about my essay and would
like to see it finished, please answer Sune's questions about
your so-called "opening device" in your article "Anthroposophy
and Ecofascism".

I've already answered them, over and over, in several different
forums. I do not believe that Steiner "went on a lecture
tour around Norway", I believe that he gave a series of
lectures in Norway. In these lectures he did indeed discuss root
races. Yes, I really do believe that these lectures are racist.
No, I did not forge the lectures. Is there something else you
would like me to answer? I'd be happy to oblige.

I've already answered them, over and over,
in several different forums. I do not believe that Steiner "went
on a lecture tour around Norway", I believe that he gave
a series of lectures in Norway.

Then why did you begin your article with this
sentence: "In June 1910 Rudolf Steiner, the founder of anthroposophy,
began a speaking tour of Norway with a lecture to a large and
attentive audience in Oslo." - ?

Incidentally, the audience was not large at
all. It was not a Billy Graham rally type of "event."
It was a small gathering of Norwegian anthroposophists. So weren't
you sloppy with the facts here?

In these lectures he did indeed discuss
root races. Yes, I really do believe that these lectures are
racist.

We know that you allegedly believe the entire
anthroposophical outline of evolution is racist.

No, I did not forge the lectures.

I don't know anything about lecture forgery
(perhaps someone else can explain), but you did lie about their
content when you wrote: "This superior fifth root race,
Steiner told his Oslo audience, was naturally the 'Aryan race.''"
- didn't you?

Is there something else you would like
me to answer?

Yes. In the same article, you write: "The
particulars of this racial theory are so bizarre that it is difficult
for non-anthroposophists to take it seriously, but it is important
to understand the pernicious and lasting effects the doctrine
has had on anthroposophists and those they've influenced."

I've already answered them, over and over,
in several different forums.

Several different forums ??? We are not on "several different
forums" we're on AT and you have to respond here on AT!
Don't be afraid to be repetitive.... On the contrary you will
show the biggest lack of respect for your dear listmates

Then why did you begin your article with this sentence: "In
June 1910 Rudolf Steiner, the founder of anthroposophy, began
a speaking tour of Norway with a lecture to a large and attentive
audience in Oslo." - ?

Because that's what he did. The last time I gave a "speaking
tour of Maryland", as the organizers termed it, every one
of my talks took place within the city of Baltimore.

Incidentally, the audience was not large
at all.

Over 70 people certainly counts as large by my standards, particularly
in Scandinavian Theosophical circles in 1910. Ever been to an
academic conference? You're lucky if you get twenty people to
a session.

So weren't you sloppy with the facts here?

No, I don't think I was. But non-anthroposophist readers have
made more or less the same remark about the "speaking tour"
part; I simply disagree that this wording suggests a multi-city
trip.

I don't know anything about lecture forgery
(perhaps someone else can explain), but you did lie about their
content when you wrote: "This superior fifth root race,
Steiner told his Oslo audience, was naturally the 'Aryan race.''"
- didn't you?

No, of course I didn't lie. Lying is when I say something that
I don't believe is true. I do believe that Steiner portrays Aryans
as superior in The Mission of the Folk Souls. You disagree with
me. Neither of us is lying.

Yes. In the same article, you write: "The
particulars of this racial theory are so bizarre that it is difficult
for non-anthroposophists to take it seriously, but it is important
to understand the pernicious and lasting effects the doctrine
has had on anthroposophists and those they've influenced."

What pernicious effects did you
have in mind?

In that
article I mostly had in mind the dismal record of too many anthroposophists
and anthroposophically-influenced figures during the Third Reich.
But I also think these effects continue to this day, and can
occasionally be seen right here on this list. A number of anthroposophists
hold truly unfortunate beliefs about race and ethnicity, in my
view.

But I also think these effects continue
to this day, and can occasionally be seen right here on this
list. A number of anthroposophists hold truly unfortunate beliefs
about race and ethnicity, in my view.

Peter, who would those unfortunate souls on
this list be Peter? You are just so full of baloney. Really it
is pretty embarrassing to watch how you handle yourself here.
I don't know why others keep discoursing with you when you continue
to speak from both sides of your mouth. You have been shown to
be one of the most corrupt minds in discerning a thing I have
come into contact with. Seriously. Well, other than Dan Dugan
but then again at least he calls it the way he sees it and nothing
much changes. Your argument changes from minute to minute depending
in what falsehood you have been caught. But then again you have
your own determination as to what constitutes a falsehood as
well. Utterly ridiculous.

Then why did you begin your article with
this sentence: "In June 1910 Rudolf Steiner, the founder
of anthroposophy, began a speaking tour of Norway with a lecture
to a large and attentive audience in Oslo." - ?

You wrote:

Because that's what he did. The last time
I gave a "speaking tour of Maryland", as the organizers
termed it, every one of my talks took place within the city of
Baltimore.

Tarjei:

It looks like you're trying to redefine "tour"
here in order to save face. If I had made a trip to Baltimore
to speak, perform a play, to sing with a band, I wouldn't call
it a tour of America or a tour of Maryland even if more than
one location in the city was scheduled. Have you ever considered
publishing your own dictionary?

Tarjei:

Incidentally, the audience was not large
at all.

Peter S:

Over 70 people certainly counts as large
by my standards, particularly in Scandinavian Theosophical circles
in 1910. Ever been to an academic conference? You're lucky if
you get twenty people to a session.

Tarjei:

A large audience of 70 people? Why didn't
you write *that*? The unsuspecting reader not only visualizes
a stadium or a huge auditorium with at least 700-800 people;
one is also left with the impression that this was only one stop
on a tour of Norway with other large audiences in Kristiansand,
Stavanger, Bergen, and Trondheim. That leaves me to choose to
believe:

1. that you're deliberately misleading your
readers
2. that you're describing something you know very little about,
pretending to be knowledgeable about details you had not researched
3. that you're so clumsy with your choice of words that your
text is understood in a manner that was never intended by you.

I have little faith in the third option. A
combination of the first two seems most plausible.

Tarjei:

So weren't you sloppy with the facts here?

Peter S:

No, I don't think I was. But non-anthroposophist
readers have made more or less the same remark about the "speaking
tour" part; I simply disagree that this wording suggests
a multi-city trip.

Tarjei:

In other words, if a Russian ballet does ten
performances in different theaters on Broadway in New York, they're
touring America? You should publish your own dictionary and advise
every reader of your articles to consult it.

Tarjei:

I don't know anything about lecture forgery
(perhaps someone else can explain), but you did lie about their
content when you wrote: "This superior fifth root race,
Steiner told his Oslo audience, was naturally the 'Aryan race.''"
- didn't you?

Peter S:

No, of course I didn't lie. Lying is when
I say something that I don't believe is true.

Tarjei:

I'm always trying to give you the benefit
of the doubt concerning the sincerity of your alleged beliefs,
but I find it difficult.

I do believe that Steiner portrays Aryans
as superior in The Mission of the Folk Souls. You disagree with
me. Neither of us is lying.

Tarjei:

If you had not been as well informed about
what Steiner means by expressions like "race" and "Aryan
race" and "root races", I might have bought your
claim to belief. But you seem too intelligent and well-read not
to know better. That's why I don't believe you. That's why I
suspect you of lying.

Tarjei:

Yes. In the same article, you write: "The
particulars of this racial theory are so bizarre that it is difficult
for non-anthroposophists to take it seriously, but it is important
to understand the pernicious and lasting effects the doctrine
has had on anthroposophists and those they've influenced."

What pernicious effects did you
have in mind?

Peter S:

In that article I mostly had in mind the
dismal record of too many anthroposophists and anthroposophically-influenced
figures during the Third Reich. But I also think these effects
continue to this day, and can occasionally be seen right here
on this list. A number of anthroposophists hold truly unfortunate
beliefs about race and ethnicity, in my view.

Tarjei:

And these "unfortunate beliefs about
race and ethnicity" remind you of the Third Reich? Frankly,
I don't believe you - unless you have also redifined the words
"figures", "anthroposophically-influenced",
and "Third Reich" as well, just like you've done above
with the words "tour" and "large audience."

It looks like you're trying to redefine "tour" here
in order to save face.

I'm not trying to redefine anything. I disagree with you about
what speaking tours involve. This has nothing to do with saving
face; if I shared your understanding of what a speaking tour
means, I would have changed the formulation in the revised version
of the article when I made all the other changes.

If I had made a trip to Baltimore to speak,
perform a play, to sing with a band, I wouldn't call it a tour
of America or a tour of Maryland even

Why not? It is a tour of Maryland. When I go to Frankfurt I frequently
tell friends that I'm going to Germany, even though I don't leave
Frankfurt -- and Frankfurt is hardly the Oslo of Germany. I think
your reading of my sentence is frivolous.

The unsuspecting reader not only visualizes
a stadium or a huge auditorium with at least 700-800 people

I'm not trying to redefine anything. I
disagree with you about what speaking tours involve.

No you don't. You only pretend to disagree
about this definition; it's an invention of yours that you came
up with after being caught in a lie - it's a pathetic trick you're
trying to use so you won't have to admit you were mistaken about
Steiner's trip to Christiania not being a tour of Norway. Admit
it like a man!

Tarjei:

If I had made a trip to Baltimore to speak,
perform a play, to sing with a band, I wouldn't call it a tour
of America or a tour of Maryland even

Peter S:

Why not? It is a tour of Maryland.

Tarjei:

Bullshit. I've checked a couple of dictionaries.
You're barking against the wind here.

Tarjei:

The unsuspecting reader not only visualizes
a stadium or a huge auditorium with at least 700-800 people

Peter S:

I think that's ridiculous.

Tarjei:

I'll tell you what's ridiculous: Your article
about Anthroposophy and Eco-Fascism is ridiculous indeed. Your
current lies and redefinitions to save face are pathetic and
shameful.

No you don't. You only pretend to disagree about this definition;
it's an invention of yours that you came up with after being
caught in a lie - it's a pathetic trick you're trying to use
so you won't have to admit you were mistaken about Steiner's
trip to Christiania not being a tour of Norway. Admit it like
a man!

Sorry, I'm not the manly type. But what you say here makes no
sense at all. I corrected all sorts of mistakes and infelicities
in the revised version of my article. I didn't "correct"
this one because I simply don't agree that it is incorrect. I
think your notion that speaking tours must involve inter-city
travel within the destination country is wrong, just as I think
your notion that a "large" audience suggest stadiums
and such is wrong.

Sorry, I'm not the manly type. But what
you say here makes no sense at all. I corrected all sorts of
mistakes and infelicities in the revised version of my article.
I didn't "correct" this one because I simply don't
agree that it is incorrect. I think your notion that speaking
tours must involve inter-city travel within the destination country
is wrong, just as I think your notion that a "large"
audience suggest stadiums and such is wrong.

Amazing. Unbelievable! You write a polemic
article against Anthroposophy and do everything you can think
of to link it to Nazism. The article itself is a big deliberate
lie, and the introductory paragraph has a handful of factual
errors in it. When confronted with these, you decide to redefine
every word that nails you, invent meanings of your own and say
that you simply disagree about what these words mean!

It's one hell of a pretense to say that you
honestly wish to discuss racism and Anthroposophy. For what purpose?
To learn more, to understand more? Obviously not. Your approach
is reminiscent of some "Young Earth Creationists" who
want to learn more about biology and evolution and Charles Darwin.
They have a pet theory about the universe popping into existence
a little more than 6000 years ago during 7 X 24 hours, and they
are not interesting in adapting their viewpoints in accordance
with new discoveries and new facts. Your own position is exactly
like that of a Young Earht'er, which make it impossible to have
a dialogue with you. And when you complain about your difficulties
in talking to anthroposophists, it's like hearing a Young Earth
fundy complaining about the difficulties in talking with Darwinists.

I once accepted an invitation to visit a Jehovah's
Witnesses' temple. They talked a lot about Darwin. It's like
hearing the WC people talking about Steiner. The only reason
they don't see through your jive is that you seem to be doing
a good job talking horseshit, chickenshit and bullshit about
Steiner in a manner that is perceived as "scholarly".
That's why they applaud you, selling out their own intellectual
honesty in the process.

Discussions with you are fruitless and useless,
but that is not the fault of any anthroposophists.

I once accepted an invitation to visit
a Jehovah's Witnesses' temple. They talked a lot about Darwin.

The parallel here seems to be more than I
bargained for. Come to think of it, there are plenty of Christian
fundies who blame Hitler and the Holocaust on Charles Darwin.
And Darwinists strike back by blaming the Holocaust on Christianity!

On August 3, 2002, I wrote a comment in a
thread that ran through these newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.biblestudy,
alt.bible, alt.religion.christian.presbyterian, and alt.christnet.calvinist.

The thread was entitled "Hitler's Christianity"
and counted 275 posts. (What is said here about Hitler's reading
technique is eerily reminiscent of Peter S' reading technique.)

You forgot to mention that
Hitler got his idea to get rid of all the Jews from the teachings
of Martin Luther. The Luthern Church doesn't want people to know
that the founder of their church was a mad man in his last days
because the Jews wouldn't convert to his new religion......

Michael Burton wrote:

Hitler's racist religious
theology came however, not from Christianity, but from the racists
religious teachings of racist Charles Darwin in his book, The
Preservation of the Favored Races in the Struggle for Life, adapted
by such luciferian teachings as Mme. Blatvosky's Root Race Theory,
the forerunner of Hitler's Master Race Theory. These are as anti-Christian
as religious beliefs in the occult teachings of evolution, temple
prostitutes sacrificing at the altar of sexual immorality, or
the idol of self esteem.

Within Christianity, all of the descendants of Israel (which
includes, but is not limited to the Jews) are to be servants
bringing forth blessings unto all families of the earth, something
occultist and probably luciferian Hitler did not favour, and
could not tolerate.

Tarjei wrote:

This is completely off the
mark. Atheists blame Nazism on Christianity, creation scientists
blame it on Charles Darwin and on Nietzsche, and so on and so
on. This is bullshit.

It's totally ridiculous and
ignorant to make Hitler and the Holocaust into an ethical-ideological
football.. What has to be understood in this context is that
Adolf Hitler developed a very special reading technique when
he was in prison - a method of study which in his case proved
remarkably effective. He ensured his readers in "Mein Kampf"
that it was his habit to resort to books if he wanted to solve
a problem. He insisted that his method of reading, better than
any other, consisted of "remembering the essential and forgetting
the unessential completely". In practice, this meant defining
what is essential, which in the case of Adolf Hitler did not
entail logical analysis, but an intuitive and emotional process
of comprehension, which he skillfully united with whatever appealed
to his own prejudices.

From Schopenhauer he took
fatalism and the idea of the will, but he forgot the Buddhism
and the pessimism. From Nietzsche he took the concept of evolution,
the will to power, and the Übermensch, but he forgot that
this Übermensch should not conquer his fellow man, but himself.
He took from Wagner the racism, heroism, and paganism, but he
forgot the Arianized Christianity. Further, he took from Helena
Blavatsky (the pioneer of spiritual evolution) and other occultists
what he wanted and conveniently forgot everything that did not
harmonize with his own world view.

With this in mind, it should
be self-evident what a hopeless waste of time and energy it is
to blame Nazism on all kinds of pre-Nazi sources of knowledge,
ideology, philosophy, and religion.

You write a polemic article against Anthroposophy
and do everything you can think of to link it to Nazism.

That's silly. There's lots of occultist crap
out there that links anthroposophy to Nazism (the kind of authors
you gravitate toward, with the opposite spin in this case), and
I don't touch any of it in my article. I don't even make much
out of historian Anna Bramwell's work, a treasure trove of damning
material on anthroposophists and Nazis; instead I draw judicously
on her work and clearly state my own skepticism toward her approach.

The article itself is a big deliberate
lie

This is a tiresome way of avoiding debate.
Since I believe what I wrote in the article, it is obviously
not a lie.

When confronted with these, you decide
to redefine every word that nails you, invent meanings of your
own and say that you simply disagree about what these words mean!

I do indeed disagree with you about what words
like "large" mean. I think your expressed position
on that question is absurd. Anybody who envisions a stadium full
of people at a theosophical gathering in Oslo in 1910 is off
their rocker.

It's one hell of a pretense to say that
you honestly wish to discuss racism and Anthroposophy.

It isn't pretense. That's what I came here
to do. For some reason many of you would prefer to discuss virtually
anything else but that topic, from medicine to manliness.

Your own position is exactly like that
of a Young Earht'er, which make it impossible to have a dialogue
with you.

I disagree that pet theories and false beliefs
make dialogue impossible. A number of active listmates here hold
pet theories and beliefs that I consider false. This does not
prevent me from engaging those theories and beliefs and explaining
why I think they are mistaken, without whining that the people
who hold them are lying and so forth.

On the contrary. Your idea of debate is extremely
tiresome and tedious - especially because it's based upon endless
mindgames and semantic drivel without a trace of sincere and
honest exchange of views from your side. If you check the body
of messages after your arrival here, you can't accuse this list
of avoiding debates with you. I'm admirably surprised at the
patience some of these people have shown.

Since I believe what I wrote in the article,
it is obviously not a lie.

What you believe or don't believe is never
obvious. Much of what you claim to believe is contradicted by
your knowledge and intelligence. That's why I don't believe you.

I do indeed disagree with you about what
words like "large" mean. I think your expressed position
on that question is absurd. Anybody who envisions a stadium full
of people at a theosophical gathering in Oslo in 1910 is off
their rocker.

You did not call it a "theosophical gathering",
but "a speaking tour of Norway", lecturing to "a
large and attentive audience", almost ringing the bells
of Hitler's Nurenberg rallies. Regardless of how many acrobatics
you try, you cannot get out of this one.

It isn't pretense. That's what I came here
to do. For some reason many of you would prefer to discuss virtually
anything else but that topic, from medicine to manliness.

The members of this list have participated
in your preferred discussions about your singular interest with
a great deal of patience. "For some reason" we share
a wide and colorful range of topical interests here.

I disagree that pet theories and false
beliefs make dialogue impossible. A number of active listmates
here hold pet theories and beliefs that I consider false. This
does not prevent me from engaging those theories and beliefs
and explaining why I think they are mistaken, without whining
that the people who hold them are lying and so forth.

Your bluff has been exposed, and there's no
reason for anyone to whine about that except yourself.

I once accepted an invitation to visit
a Jehovah's Witnesses' temple. They talked a lot about Darwin.
It's like hearing the WC people talking about Steiner. The only
reason they don't see through your jive is that you seem to be
doing a good job talking horseshit, chickenshit and bullshit
about Steiner in a manner that is perceived as "scholarly".
That's why they applaud you, selling out their own intellectual
honesty in the process.

"horseshit, chickenshit and bullshit":
Thinking, feeling and willing? But which is which?

Discussions with you are fruitless and
useless, but that is not the fault of any anthroposophists.

Oh dear, how ungentlemanly of you, Tarjei.
Didn't they teach you manners in the WC homo sapiens-shit temple?

In that article [Anthroposophy
and Ecofacism] I mostly had in mind the dismal record of too
many anthroposophists and anthroposophically-influenced figures
during the Third Reich. But I also think these effects continue
to this day, and can occasionally be seen right here on this
list. A number of anthroposophists hold truly unfortunate beliefs
about race and ethnicity, in my view.

Daniel:

Peter, I thought you declaimed proudly that
you never, no, never ever, work by implication. But what is this
paragraph? What dismal record do "too many anthroposophists
and anthroposophically-influenced figures" have during the
Third Reich? What is the reader to make of such a paragraph except
that the majority of Anthroposophists did truly horrible things,
marching to Hitler's orders. Yet you know this is nonsense, and
have said so yourself. You do not provided any details here.
Every time I have asked you for details, they melt away. You
mumble things about Rittelmayer's anti-Semitism, but cannot produce
a single example. Sorry, Mr. Implication, but you are truly pathetic
as a scholar, and a weasel and a hypocrite as a debater. I've
watched you shift positions a dozen different ways to always
come off knowing more than your interlocutors, and you don't
even realize how often you contradict yourself. It's a sorry
thing to see.

Note the "in detail". Peter, your
paragraph (reproduced below) is lacking all detail. It is only
four lines long, and lacks any example to back up your claims.

This is a typical Staudenmaier move. Pick the lable you would
like to apply (the one that proves you right) and use it, whether
or not it really does apply to the case at hand. Here it most
certainly does not. If you were asked on a test to provide an
example of an explicative paragraph and wrote the paragraph below,
you would fail, quite simple. But for rhetorical purposes, to
score an easy point, the label "explication" is used
to show up objection, and demonstrate the ignorance of the accuser.
Sorry, won't work. The response only shows the duplicity of the
responder.

This also shows the typical Staudenmaier problem with the meaning
of words, yet another example of how Peter Staudenmaier has his
own personal dictionary.

Peter, I was asking for explication of the overbroad claims thrown
carelessly about in the paragraph below.

What dismal record do "too many anthroposophists
and anthroposophically-influenced figures" have during the
Third Reich?

Peter Staudenmaier:

Erhard Bartsch had a dismal record during
the Third Reich. Margarete and Eugen Link had dismal records
during the Third Reich. Franz Lippert had a dismal record during
the Third Reich. Johannes Bertram had a dismal record during
the Third Reich. Alwin Seifert had a dismal record during the
Third Reich. Els Moll had a dismal record during the Third Reich.
Hanns Rascher had a dismal record during the Third Reich. Otto
Ohlendorf had a dismal record during the Third Reich. Guenther
Wachsmuth's record wasn't so hot either. Nor Elisabeth Klein's.
Nor Helga Scheel-Geelmuyden's. Nor Rene Maikowski's. Nor Richard
Karutz's. You are welcome to disagree with any or all of those
assessments. But I don't see what it has to do with implication.

Daniel:

Why are you throwing Otto Ohlendorf back in
the mix. I thought you told us he was not an anthroposophist.
(See what I mean about consistency?)

So here we have 14 names of "too many anthroposophists and
anthroposophically-influenced figures". Without any explication.
Simply roll call. How does Peter Staudenmaier know of the deeds
of these 14? In most cases because Anthroposphists have kindly
done the work of uncovering their deeds and publishing them in
a frank assessment of Anthroposophy in the time of National Socialism.
Of course, it is not frank as far as Peter Staudenmaier is concerned
(even if he relies on it to make his claims). 14 names, some
of whom are not even anthroposophists by Mr. Staudenmaier's own
account.

Now Mr. Implication says that he is simply explicating when he
writes that "too many anthroposophists and anthroposophically-influenced
figures" have a dismal record. And from a legalistic perspective,
even 14 is "too many". But it is not a balanced historical
overview. There were some 20,000 card-carrying anthroposophists
at that time, and if only 14 of them have a dismal record, then
on the balance this paints a completely different picture. And
if you go as far as Mr. Implication and include non-card-carrying
"anthroposophically-influenced" figures, then we are
14 for three or four hundred thousand.

So, Peter, for the benefit of the non-German speakers, would
you care to detail briefly the record of these dismal 14. After
all, you have claimed that enlightening the non-specialist audience
is your heart's true concern.

Daniel wrote:

What is the reader to make of such a paragraph
except that the majority of Anthroposophists did truly horrible
things, marching to Hitler's orders.

Some of the people I just named did indeed
march to Hitler's order's, and a couple of them did truly horrible
things. But most of them simply were happy to join the Nazi party,
or to collaborate with the SS, or announce their sympathy for
the Nazi regime, or emphatically distance themselves and anthroposophy
from any connections to Jews and declare themselves and anthroposophy
perfectly compatible with the Volksgemeinschaft.

Daniel:

Mr. Implication is at it again. Most of whom?
Most of these 14? Most of these 14 were not card-carrying members
of the Nazi party. Most anthroposophists? Also not card-carrying
Nazis. And certainly not happily card-carrying Nazi's. Ohlendorf,
whom you threw in here for reasons unclear to me, is certainly
the worst of them all by a wide margin. Mixing him up with Wachsmuth's
ill-advised attempt to ingratiate anthroposophy to national socialism
serves no useful purpose beyond confusing the non-specialist
reader. In invite Mr. Staudenmaier to offer a clear explication
of the deeds of these 14 and why he feels each one has a dismal
record. Taking him at his word, that is.

In that article [Anthroposophy
and Ecofacism] I mostly had in mind the dismal record of too
many anthroposophists and anthroposophically-influenced figures
during the Third Reich. But I also think these effects continue
to this day, and can occasionally be seen right here on this
list. A number of anthroposophists hold truly unfortunate beliefs
about race and ethnicity, in my view.

Daniel later wrote:

Peter, I was asking for explication of
the overbroad claims thrown carelessly about in the paragraph
below.

Yes, I can see that this is what you were
asking for. The reason you asked for this is that you misconstrued
the paragraph in the first place. It says absolutely nothing
about "the majority of anthroposophists" or about anybody
"marching to Hitler's orders". Those notions are figments
of your imagination; they do not appear in the paragraph at all.
It is neither careless nor overbroad to say that too many anthroposophists
and anthroposophically influenced figures had dismal records
during the Third Reich. If you would like to disagree with that
assessment, as applied to any of the figures I named, feel free
to do so.

Daniel:

Well, Mr. Implication, I have previously acknowledged
that your paragraph, as written, indeed does not make any claims
that you could be held to. However, it is very carefully worded
to have the maximum impact with the minimum contavertability.
Excellent propaganda, Peter, very well written. Pardon me for
shining such a bright light on it. It very successfully conveys
the impression that there is something seriously wrong with many,
if not all anthroposophists - past and present - in relation
to the issue of race. Yet, as you point out, this is accomplished
in such a way that no one can object on factual grounds to any
part of it. Very well done.

And by that definition, so were about half
a million other Europeans during that time period. I find it
interesting that when we discuss history in detail, you always
make the proper and accurate differentiations. But when you go
into overt propaganda mode, you freely lump figures like Ohlendorf
with anthroposophists for rhetorical effect. Very effective polemic,
I must say.